Goodman v. Renewal by Andersen LLC
- Tiga
- 4:26-cv-04974
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Goodman v. Renewal by Andersen, Judge Tiga denied Plaintiffs’ late jury-trial motion and struck their jury demand.
Mark C. Goodman and Patricia S. Goodman, whose jury demand was struck and whose motion for a jury trial was denied.
What happened
Mark C. Goodman and Patricia S. Goodman sued Renewal by Andersen LLC in state court, and the case was later moved to federal court. The plaintiffs did not request a jury trial in their complaint but later filed a jury demand and motion.
The court held that the plaintiffs’ jury demand was too late. It rejected their argument that the timing rules for removed cases excused the delay because California requires an express jury demand. The court also declined to allow a jury trial as an exception because the plaintiffs’ legal misunderstanding was not a reason beyond inadvertence or oversight.
In Goodman v. Renewal by Andersen LLC, Judge Jon S. Tiga denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a jury trial and struck their jury demand.
The detailed version
- Goodman v. Renewal by Andersen LLC · No. 4:26-cv-04974
- Tiga
- Sept. 1, 2026
Background
Mark C. Goodman and Patricia S. Goodman sued Renewal by Andersen LLC in Marin County Superior Court on April 28, 2026. Their complaint did not request a jury trial. Renewal by Andersen removed the case to the Northern District of California on May 26, 2026, and later filed an answer and an amended answer. The plaintiffs filed a jury demand on July 13, 2026, followed by a motion for a jury trial on July 19, 2026.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38 requires a party to properly serve and file a jury demand. Rule 81 provides timing rules for jury demands when a case is removed from state court. Rule 39(b) allows a court, in its discretion, to order a jury trial when a party did not make a proper demand, but Ninth Circuit precedent requires a reason beyond mere inadvertence or oversight for an untimely demand.
Court’s analysis
The plaintiffs argued that Rule 81(c)(3)(A) applied because California did not require a jury demand at the time of removal: under California law, the case had not yet been set for trial. The court agreed that no demand was required at that specific time under the California trial-setting rule. But it rejected the plaintiffs’ broader argument that they were therefore excused from making a timely federal jury demand. The court concluded that California requires an express jury demand and that the plaintiffs’ demand was untimely.
The plaintiffs alternatively asked the court to use its discretion under Rule 39(b). They argued that Renewal by Andersen would not be prejudiced and that their timing decisions resulted from their interpretation of Rule 81 rather than from a mistake. The court found that the plaintiffs had misunderstood the law. It explained that a good-faith legal mistake is treated like inadvertence or oversight and does not expand the court’s limited discretion to permit an untimely jury demand.
Disposition
The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a jury trial and struck their jury demand.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.